The short-range wireless communication specification in the 2.4 GHz Industrial Scientific Medicine (ISM) band known as “Bluetooth” has been adopted as the basis of the first part of the Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) specifications (IEEE Std 802.15.1). Being designed as a low-cost replacement for wires and cables, Bluetooth aims to provide a unified and convenient wireless interface for applications within a “personal area” of approximately 10 meters. Bluetooth utilizes frequency hopping (FH) as its spread spectrum approach, a requirement in the ISM band. The ISM band, however, is an unlicensed shared band that may have interference from many different systems operating concurrently. The Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) specification known as IEEE Std 802.11(b), and its higher-speed extension, is another wireless communication specification in the ISM band. WLAN is targeted for high-speed data exchange in a local area network (LAN) environment. Clearly, there is a high probability that WPAN and WLAN devices will be utilized at the same time, a situation known as co-existence. The problems arising from co-existence have drawn so much attention that a special task group, TG2, under the auspices of the IEEE 802.15 has been formed to model the resulting performance degradation and study possible solutions. Adaptive frequency hopping (AFH) (HongBing Gan and Bijan Treister, Adaptive Frequency Hopping Implementation Proposals for IEEE 802.15.1/2 WPAN, IEEE P802.15 Working Group Contribution, IEEE 802.15-00/367r0, Nov. 1, 2000) has been one proposed solution to the co-existent problem. AFH removes the channels which experience interference from the hopping sequence thus providing hops to the clean, non-interfered channels only. However, one problem with AFH is that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has placed a restriction on the channel usage of frequency-hopping systems in the 2.4 GHz band. The system must have at least 75 channels and the occupation time of each channel not exceed 0.4 second in 30 seconds. This implies that at least 75 channels should be kept and used uniformly to achieve full-time usage. Removal of 22 channels occupied by an 802.11b device from the 79 hopping channels of Bluetooth would be unfeasible. This restriction applies to Bluetooth type 1 and type 2 devices but not to type 3 devices due to their relatively lower transmission power (Bluetooth Special Interest Group, Specifications of the Bluetooth System, vol. 1, v.1.0B ‘Core’ and vol. 2 v1.0B ‘Profiles’, December 1999). The design of a new hopping sequence is also critical to integrate AFH into Bluetooth. Two recent proposals in the AFH section of TG2 (Hongbing Gan, Bijan Treister, et al, Adaptive Frequency Hopping, a Non-collaborative Coexistence Mechanism, IEEE P802.15 Working Group Contribution, IEEE 802.15-00/367r1, March 2001; Kwang-Cheng Chen, Hung-Kun Chen, and Chi-Chao Chao, Selective Hopping for Hit Avoidance, IEEE P802.15 Working Group Contribution, IEEE 802.15-01/057r2, March 2001; Anuj Batra, Kofi Anim-Appiah, and Jin-Meng Ho, An Intelligent Frequency Hopping Scheme for Improved Bluetooth Throughput in an Interference-Limited Environment, IEEE P802.15 Working Group Contribution, IEEE 802.15-01/082r1, March 2001; and Oren Eliezer and Dan Michael, Adaptive Frequency Hopping for FHS S Systems, IEEE P802.15 Working Group Contribution, IEEE 802.15-01/169r0, March 2001) to solve this problem are by Gan and Eliezer, respectively. However, Gan and Eliezer's schemes do not comply with the FCC regulation of using at least 75 hopping channels. Gan's number of channels in the new hopping sequence is equal to that of the good channels, which is adaptive according to the environment. The bad channels in the original hopping sequence are redirected to the pool of good channels in a circular order, while the good channels remain unchanged. This circular order redirection, however, does not maintain the pseudo-randomness of the original hopping sequence and is thus considered a weakness. Eliezer's number of channels in the new hopping sequence is equal to a prime number, 23, selected from the pool of good channels. The sequence has a very short period and also provides no pseudo-randomness. The reduction of the number of hopping channels and shortened period of the hopping sequence is claimed by Eliezer to be suitable for AFH. Another approach to the co-existence problem is so-called intelligent frequency hopping (IFH) (Anuj Batra, Kofi Anim-Appiah, and Jin-Meng Ho, An Intelligent Frequency Hopping Scheme for Improved Bluetooth Throughput in an Interference-Limited Environment, IEEE P802.15 Working Group Contribution, IEEE 802.15-01/082r1, March 2001) which uses all the hopping channels and generates a new hopping sequence based on traffic requirements. In IFH, the number of channels used in the new hopping sequence can be equal to the number of all the channels. The new hopping sequence comprises good windows and bad windows. Each good window is followed by a bad window and vice-versa. The length of good windows and bad windows are fixed and optimized for data or voice traffic. IFH generates good channels within the good windows utilizing a look-ahead algorithm; however, the repetition of good and bad channels is not well suited to voice traffic. Furthermore, the look-ahead algorithm requires searching through the sequence and is more complex than other hop-by-hop mapping algorithms, such as in Gan.